France: Large individual aid "biointelligence" by OSEO

On 28 October 2008, he French authorities notified the European Commission the individual aid project by Oséo in favor of the "Biointelligence" program.

BioIntelligence aims to develop software programs related to the biomedical and cosmetic sector.

Dassault Systèmes is leading the project, in partnership with five pharmaceutical companies (Pierre Fabre, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier and Bayer CropScienc ), two SME's specialized in softwares ( SoBioS and Auréus Pharma) and three French public research laboratories ( INRIA, INSERM and Genopole. ).

The European Commission gave the following assessment:
The program is financed by the French government trough the State agency Oséo and is therefore considered as state aid. The measure is selective since is it only given to a limited number of companies. By contributing to their R&D expenses, the measure provides beneficiaries an advantage. Since these companies operate in sectors that are open to intra-community trade, the measure is likely to affect trade. The given state aid will distort competition since the companies benefit from a strengthened position in comparison with other foreign competitors. (par. 94 of the letter from the European Commission to France - Brussels, 13.05.2009 C(2009) 3552 final [French])

The Commission, however, has accordingly decided not to raise objections against the notified measure, since it fulfills the conditions to be considered compatible with the EC Treaty.

A state measure in the GTA database is assessed solely in terms of the extent to which its implementation affects the extent of discrimination against foreign commercial interests. On this metric, the state aid proposed here is discriminatory.

Any Evidence-Based Deliberation:

Question

Result

Is there anything in the public record to suggest that evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed measure was considered during official deliberations?

Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered?

Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government?

Was such evidence identified?

Is such evidence publicly available?

Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives?

Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken?

Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory?

Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation?

Global Trade Alert provides real-time information on state measures taken during the current global downturn that are likely to affect foreign commerce. It goes beyond other monitoring initiatives by identifying the trading partners likely to be harmed by these measures.